Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2025-09-09

Docket: COA-25-CV-0273

Justices: Miller, Zarnett and Madsen JJ.A.

Between

Kanwaljeet Singh Hura Applicant (Respondent)

and

Neeraj Kaur Respondent (Appellant)

Counsel

Neeraj Kaur, acting in person [1]

Stephen Eaton, for the respondent

Heard: September 2, 2025

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Renu J. Mandhane of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 7, 2025.

Reasons for Decision

[1] This case is about the correct appeal route and the exercise of discretion to transfer a matter to this court where the appeal was initially brought in the wrong court.

[2] The parties have a divorce order made in Texas on March 4, 2024. That order includes parenting terms. The underlying issue, not before us, is whether the parenting terms of a foreign divorce order can be enforced and/or varied by the Ontario Court of Justice (OCJ) under the Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.

[3] Both parties and the children now reside in Ontario. On motion brought by the father on the question of jurisdiction, the OCJ judge found that that court has jurisdiction to address parenting issues. She reasoned that the mother had effectively attorned to the OCJ's jurisdiction by attending a case conference, and that "[t]he children were living in the Region of Peel when the father's application was commenced." The judge did not directly cite s. 22 of the CLRA, but the father's motion was pled on that basis.

[4] The mother appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (SCJ). The SCJ judge inferred that the basis of the OCJ finding of jurisdiction was s. 22(1)(a) of the CLRA, which states that the court has jurisdiction to make a parenting order where "the child is habitually resident in Ontario at the commencement of the application for the order". As s. 73(2) of the CLRA provides that an appeal of an order made under s. 22 lies to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the SCJ judge dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Late in oral submissions, the mother requested that the SCJ judge transfer the appeal to this court. The SCJ judge declined to do so, as the request had not been pled.

[5] On appeal to this court, the mother argues that the appeal properly lies to the SCJ and that, in the alternative, if the appeal lies to this court, the SCJ judge ought to have exercised her discretion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, to transfer the matter. She asserts that the SCJ judge erred in determining that the OCJ order was made under s. 22 of the CLRA where not explicitly so stated and that it was an error to rely on the failure to plead CJA, s. 110 in declining to transfer the case.

[6] The SCJ judge did not err. In the circumstances, particularly the pleadings of the father, and viewed holistically, she properly characterized the OCJ order as having been made under s. 22 of the CLRA. Accordingly, the appeal of that order lies to this court. Nor did the SCJ judge err in her exercise of discretion not to transfer the appeal where the request was made late in the process and effectively without notice.

[7] The underlying substantive issue remains unaddressed and was not part of this appeal. Should the mother wish to pursue it further, she may wish to consider seeking an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to this court from the OCJ judge's decision described in para. 3 above. This appeal is dismissed, without prejudice to her right to seek such an extension.

[8] Costs are set at $6,000 payable to the respondent father, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

B.W. Miller J.A.

B. Zarnett J.A.

L. Madsen J.A.

[1] At the hearing, K. Maurina indicated she was appearing as an agent for Neeraj Kaur.